Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbOjfq_M8_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnT3Uevy5rU

Concerned citizens, Republican, Democrat, and Independents alike, voice their questions, distrust and outrage and the response is this?

SEIU thugs called in to run security like a bad 70's mob movie. The law enforcement agencies in the towns and cities the town hall meetings are being held are all the security that's needed, but it's not good enough for Obama and his ilk, because there's nothing unlawful about shouting down the lies being spewed out by politicians. It may be disrespectful, and maybe not the most productive way about confronting the discontent with current policy or proposed legislating, but there's nothing illegal about it. The Democrats need to resort to union muscle in this latest act in the quid pro quo relationship between the Obama/DNC administration and the Unions.

The labor unions are exempt from the bill currently circulating around the House of Representatives, so why are they even at a town hall meeting for Government run Healthcare anyways?
St. Louis and Tampa aren't the last we've seen of this thuggish violence directed at the opposition of Obama's vision for the country, there is no doubt in my mind on that.

Tyras wrote:
SEIU thugs called in to run security like a bad 70's mob movie. The law enforcement agencies in the towns and cities the town hall meetings are being held are all the security that's needed, but it's not good enough for Obama and his ilk, because there's nothing unlawful about shouting down the lies being spewed out by politicians.

Wait, there's a huge gap between "The President called these guys in to intimidate the opposition.", and "These guys, who also support the President, are attempting to intimidate the opposition."

Tyras wrote:
It may be disrespectful, and maybe not the most productive way about confronting the discontent with current policy or proposed legislating, but there's nothing illegal about it. The Democrats need to resort to union muscle in this latest act in the quid pro quo relationship between the Obama/DNC administration and the Unions.

You've got a thing for conspiracies I take it?

Tyras wrote:
The labor unions are exempt from the bill currently circulating around the House of Representatives, so why are they even at a town hall meeting for Government run Healthcare anyways?

Possibly because they want to be included in the bill? Or because they're simply interested in what their elected officials have to say about national healthcare? Or maybe their simply pricks who are taking it on themselves in take partisan conflict one step further?

Tyras wrote:
St. Louis and Tampa aren't the last we've seen of this thuggish violence directed at the opposition of Obama's vision for the country, there is no doubt in my mind on that.

You're probably right, but that doesn't imply that its organized, or supported, by the current Administration.

Edit: What violence? In the first video there was a guy on the ground, but nothing particularly damning. For all we know he tripped over the curb he had been standing on. In the second video there wasn't any violence at all, just a lot of loud, aggressive posturing by people with no interest in public discourse. Hell, based on some of the other recordings I've seen any violence on the part of Democratic supporters could be considered under the mitigating circumstances of assault on the part of the protesters.

NO JUSTICE! NO PEACE!

oh wait wrong thread...er never mind.

Did you expect anything less when the Democratic party sent the call out to union heavies? And they did actually call them out.

love it!

Frazzled wrote:Did you expect anything less when the Democratic party sent the call out to union heavies? And they did actually call them out.

Serious question, not meant to be snarky at all, but when did this happen?

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Did you expect anything less when the Democratic party sent the call out to union heavies? And they did actually call them out.

Serious question, not meant to be snarky at all, but when did this happen?

How rude! You shouldn't single a poster out like that. He was just casually dropping the information, he shouldn't be expected to also explain it.

Dogma, you can't be that naive. Your response is beneath your normally research based rebuttal. Look into the DNC and Obama's relationships with the unions.

Why would Union members want to attend the townhalls "because they want to be a part of the Healthcare takeover" when their Union provided Healthcare already provides for them and will be exempt from the fines thre IRS will levy on those not under a healthcare program rated by the Healthcare bill, they will be exempt from being forced into the Government Healthcare Program if their Union Healthcare changes rates or coverage like non union members will be. It goes on, but the Unions are riding high right now. I find it a little confusing as to why the Union would organize to attend townhall meetings to demand the Government take them down a few notches lol.

As for the Presidential calls to action. First his relation to the Union is well documentd in Campaign contributions, speeches to labor unions, preferential treatment to Unions (UAW union stakes trumping Secured Lenders in Automake takeovers, and Healthcare exemptions). There will be no outright "We asked the Unions to organize and run security for Congressmen and Senators that Support Obamacare." That kinda crap comes out when e-mails get leaked years down the road (just like some of the crap Bush pulled). Obama in the public eye will just go back to Campaign mode (has he ever left that mode?) and ya get this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/05/obama-supporters-have-get-out-there/

Disgraceful.

That's what the Police are for.

Also

How rude! You shouldn't single a poster out like that. He was just casually dropping the information, he shouldn't be expected to also explain it.

.. do you want me to call you "rude" or shall we let someone else do that then ?

Tyras wrote:There will be no outright "We asked the Unions to organize and run security for Congressmen and Senators that Support Obamacare."

So you are basing your argument on assumed future knowledge?

Tyras wrote:Dogma, you can't be that naive. Your response is beneath your normally research based rebuttal. Look into the DNC and Obama's relationships with the unions.

Primarily because research was unnecessary. You drew several sweeping conclusion from nothing more than a confrontation between several unidentified individuals. Specifically asking why any member of a union would want to be involved in the national healthcare debate while simultaneously stating that public fora should be open access; thereby contradicting yourself.

Tyras wrote:
Why would Union members want to attend the townhalls "because they want to be a part of the Healthcare takeover"...

Who are you quoting? Certainly not me, as that's not what I said.

Tyras wrote:
...when their Union provided Healthcare already provides for them

So anyone who currently has healthcare should be opposed to national healthcare? I have insurance, does that mean that any support I profess for such legislation is illegitimate?

Tyras wrote:
and will be exempt from the fines thre IRS will levy on those not under a healthcare program rated by the Healthcare bill, they will be exempt from being forced into the Government Healthcare Program if their Union Healthcare changes rates or coverage like non union members will be.

There hasn't even been a formal legislative draft yet. Everything is still in the proposal phase, which is why there is so much being made of all the public demonstration.

Tyras wrote:
It goes on, but the Unions are riding high right now. I find it a little confusing as to why the Union would organize to attend townhall meetings to demand the Government take them down a few notches lol.

Read this

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, in paraphrase wrote:
Sweeney describes it as a "requirement that ALL employers 'pay or play,'" that the final bill have "a robust public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers and drive down health costs," and that the legislation contain "relief for company/union funds providing pre-Medicare retiree coverage, and no taxation of health benefits!"

Pretty much what I said above.

Tyras wrote:
As for the Presidential calls to action. First his relation to the Union is well documentd in Campaign contributions, speeches to labor unions, preferential treatment to Unions (UAW union stakes trumping Secured Lenders in Automake takeovers, and Healthcare exemptions). There will be no outright "We asked the Unions to organize and run security for Congressmen and Senators that Support Obamacare." That kinda crap comes out when e-mails get leaked years down the road (just like some of the crap Bush pulled). Obama in the public eye will just go back to Campaign mode (has he ever left that mode?) and ya get this: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/05/obama-supporters-have-get-out-there/

Ok, but none of that has anything to do with public intimidation. Unless any demonstration is necessarily intimidating, in which case all the 'no-socialism' protesters are in the exact same boat.

I questioned your claim that the DNC/President resorted to a policy of overt violence, and you counter with a statement pertaining to a general call to action. You are either dodging the question, or attempting to prove a conclusion you have already come to.

Yep it's all speculation. I admit there is no way to know who is calling the shots, but I find it strange that Unions who have no stake in the Healthcare debate due to being exempt (at least in the House bill, the senate bills are still coalescing), are showing up to act as security, bouncers and outright thugs as the videos showed. Unions don't make T-shirts and just show up in numbers without somebody asking them to. Funny how Dems can call the opposition an organized effort by Lobbyist groups and republican organizations and don't get the tinfoil hat response, but when the Union actions are pointed out I do. Time to add another layer of foil I guess.

Ahtman wrote:

Tyras wrote:There will be no outright "We asked the Unions to organize and run security for Congressmen and Senators that Support Obamacare."

So you are basing your argument on assumed future knowledge?

This is the union side
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/unions_to_counter_town_hall_te.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/unions-joining-the-fray-in-health-care-overhaul/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/liberal-groups-launch-town-hall-counteroffensive/

Over the past few days, groups like Health Care for America Now, the AFL-CIO — which is describing the town halls as the "principal battleground" in the health care fight — and Organizing for America, the president's campaign arm at the Democratic National Committee, have sent supporters logistical tips for dealing with any hostile conservative presence at the town halls, and for organizing lobbying efforts to neutralize their impact.

Tyras wrote:Yep it's all speculation. I admit there is no way to know who is calling the shots, but I find it strange that Unions who have no stake in the Healthcare debate due to being exempt (at least in the House bill, the senate bills are still coalescing),

You keep saying this despite the fact that it simply isn't true. Even if they are exempt from the House bill they still have a vested interest in national healthcare as it will inevitably affect the cost of their current plan.

Tyras wrote:
are showing up to act as security, bouncers and outright thugs as the videos showed.

Again, the video didn't show anything. There were clearly altercations on the scene, as most national news outlets have been reporting as much, but its very difficult to tell what is actually happening. Hell, the 2nd video didn't even include someone in a union shirt, let alone any violence.

Tyras wrote:
Unions don't make T-shirts and just show up in numbers without somebody asking them to.

Uh, they do that all the time, usually at the discretion of Union Bosses when said individuals feel their interests are at stake.

Tyras wrote:
Funny how Dems can call the opposition an organized effort by Lobbyist groups and republican organizations and don't get the tinfoil hat response, but when the Union actions are pointed out I do. Time to add another layer of foil I guess.

The difference is that you're linking the Unions, which self-contained affiliations with their own policy goals, to the Administration's desire to pass a bill. Whereas the Dems are simply stating that these protests have been organized by forces of dissent, which isn't a particularly earth-shattering idea. Otherwise random people don't congregate in numbers without some form of outside organization. Well, they do actually, but not very often.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
This is the union side
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/08/unions_to_counter_town_hall_te.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/unions-joining-the-fray-in-health-care-overhaul/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/06/liberal-groups-launch-town-hall-counteroffensive/

Over the past few days, groups like Health Care for America Now, the AFL-CIO — which is describing the town halls as the "principal battleground" in the health care fight — and Organizing for America, the president's campaign arm at the Democratic National Committee, have sent supporters logistical tips for dealing with any hostile conservative presence at the town halls, and for organizing lobbying efforts to neutralize their impact.

What does any of this have to do with endorsing physical intimidation?

If a union is showing up, there's going to be a brawl. Its what the do.

I'm just annoyed I don't have popcorn. Wait I sense a pay per view business opportunity:

August Smackdown: AFL-CIO vs. SOCCER Moms for Jesus! Now at the Akron Activity Center Sunday SUNDAY SUNDAY!!!

Frazzled wrote:If a union is showing up, there's going to be a brawl. Its what the do.

And yet there wasn't anything approaching a brawl. So much for that theory.

There was violence thank you. The theory is accurate thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
pushy shovey-its assault. Pretty amateur but its a good start. I have faith they can work up to it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kxaGfClPws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnT3Uevy5rU&feature=related

dogma wrote:And yet there wasn't anything approaching a brawl. So much for that theory.

And yet, police were summoned and people led away in handcuffs. *SOMETHING* happened.

It would be inspired if we managed to get up to the level of South Korea. I want to see Barbara Boxer and Kay Hutchinson pull their shoes off and beat go at it. Frankly it just shows how our political class has degraded. Back in the day they would beat each other with canes and the occasional duel. Now thats proper political discourse!

Frazzled wrote:There was violence thank you. The theory is accurate thanks.

What, the theory that there was an altercation, or the theory that unions are only capable of violence? The first one isn't a theory, but a fact. And the second is just more of your usual "I feel like that's the way it is" nonsense.

Frazzled wrote:
pushy shovey-its assault. Pretty amateur but its a good start. I have faith they can work up to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kxaGfClPws

Really? That's the attempt to commit a battery?

Frazzled wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnT3Uevy5rU&feature=related

Why do people keep linking to a video that doesn't actually include violence?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:
And yet, police were summoned and people led away in handcuffs. *SOMETHING* happened.

I never claimed that nothing happened. Instead I attempted to question the notion that this is somehow an act of overt intimidation, and now I'm questioning Fraz's point that Unions only know how to hit things.

The first video it's hard to tell what happened... so no comment from me.

The 2nd video had a bunch of people chanting and screaming not allowing the speaker to speak. Of course they are going to escort/push/shove the people that are screaming out of the room. They were creating a disturbance. What do you expect them to do?

Give me a break.


GG